9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d investment made in the closing stock and treating it as covered in the surrender of Rs.20 lakh made in the account of investment in property. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.3,85,978/- on account of bogus purchases and creditors. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.4,96,465/- out of total addition of Rs.5,96,805/- (correct amount is Rs.5,93,805/-) on account of un-reconciled discrepancies in the account of the creditors vis-à-vis the assessee's books of accounts found during the course of assessment proceedings." 5. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No.461/Agr/2011 are as under :- "1. That, impugned appellate order, confirming addition of Rs.5,97,341/- is unjustified and passed without appreciating facts of the case in proper context. 2. That learned assessing authority as well as appellate authority ought to have appreciated the fact that addition of Rs.5,00,000/- made on account of investment in construction of building is neither substantiated by any valuation report called ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urces being investment in the building because at the time finalization of accounts the assessee noticed that the construction expenses have been duly debited in regular books of account and accordingly actual cost and surrender has been shown in the books and in the return. It is further stated that the A.O. did not point out any discrepancy in the declared construction cost in comparison to the actual cost. The A.O. did not accept the assessee's contention and made the addition of Rs.5,00,000/- each in both the cases. 8. The CIT(A) confirmed the said additions though by separate orders but by common observations that the assessee at the time of survey categorically mentioned that the assessee is surrendering voluntarily Rs.20,00,000/- in addition to the income earned and declared and the same shall be incorporated in the books of account while filing the return of income. In the case of Shri Naresh Nandlal Taluja, a post dated cheque for Rs.6,00,000/- has also been given by the assessee. During the course of proceedings before the CIT(A), the ld. Authorised Representative of the assessee vide Order Sheet Entry dated 06.09.2011 admitted the mistake of not showing the total amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.61,327/- on account of discrepancies found in purchases declared by the assessee vis-à-vis creditors' books of account on account of discount and rate differences. The CIT(A) has also examined the account of Durga Fashion and Saroj Textiles and others and noticed that the assessee failed to furnish any evidence in respect of difference of Rs.36,014/- on account of discount and rate differences in the said account of Saroj Textile. The CIT(A) held that the addition to the extent of Rs.36,014/- + 61,327/- made by the A.O. is justified. Therefore, the addition to the extent of Rs.97,341/- was confirmed. The assessee raised ground no.3 against addition sustained by the CIT(A) and Revenue has filed appeal against the deletion of addition vide ground no.3. 12. We notice that the CIT(A) has examined each and every parties. The differences noticed by the A.O. in the books of account and creditors have been examined in detail by the CIT(A). Wherever the assessee furnished details of evidences and got reconciled with the accounts in assessee's books of account and creditors' books of account, the CIT(A) deleted the addition. However, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stock as per physical inventory and as per his regular books of account stated that he has surrendered a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- and the same has been accepted by the A.O. The CIT(A) found that in the light of the fact the A.O. was not justified in making separate addition of Rs.3,75,506/-. The CIT(A) accordingly deleted the said addition. 17. We noticed that the CIT(A) has rightly appreciated the fact firstly that closing stock as per books of accounts was found less and, therefore, in principle the addition of gross amount is not warranted. Even otherwise also, disclosure of Rs.15,00,000/- has been offered by the assessee and the balance Rs.5,00,000/- we have confirmed the addition made as discussed above. In the light of the fact, we are of the view that no such addition is warranted. The CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition. 18. The second ground of Revenue's appeal is in respect of addition of Rs.3,85,978/- made by the A.O. on account of bogus purchases and creditors. During the assessment proceedings, the A.O. issued letters/summons under section 133(6) to four parties which were returned back. Therefore, the A.O. made addition of Rs.3,85,978/-. 19. The CIT(A), after e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
